WIFO WORKING PAPERS. Policy Recommendations on the Gender Effects of Changes in Tax Bases, Rates, and Units

WIFO ÖSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT FÜR WIRTSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG WORKING PAPERS Policy Recommendations on the Gender Effects of Changes in Tax Bases, Rates, and Units Results of Microsimulation Analyses for Six Selected EU Member Countries Marian Fink, Jitka Janová, Danuše Nerudová, Jan Pavel, Margit Schratzenstaller, Friedrich Sindermann-Sienkiewicz, Martin Spielauer 578/2019

Policy Recommendations on the Gender Effects of Changes in Tax Bases, Rates, and Units Results of Microsimulation Analyses for Six Selected EU Member Countries Marian Fink, Jitka Janová, Danuše Nerudová, Jan Pavel, Margit Schratzenstaller, Friedrich Sindermann-Sienkiewicz, Martin Spielauer WIFO Working Papers, No. 578 March 2019 Abstract The design of tax systems has a considerable impact on the distribution of income and wealth at the household and the individual level, and due to gender-differentiated socio-economic conditions also in a gender perspective. One of the most important areas of taxation is the taxation of personal incomes. Besides the level of income tax rates and the design of the income tax schedule (progressive versus flat tax schedule), the system of household taxation (joint versus individual taxation), the determination of taxable income and the design of tax exemptions (tax allowances versus credits), particularly childrelated ones, are crucial determinants of the distributional effects and work incentives of the personal income tax. The study presents an overview of the microsimulation results for selected provisions of the personal income tax system on income distribution and work incentives. The microsimulations are based on EUROMOD for six selected EU countries: Germany, Austria, Spain, Czech Republic, UK, and Sweden, countries of different "families" of welfare and taxation traditions. E-mail addresses: marian.fink@wifo.ac.at, margit.schratzenstaller@wifo.ac.at, martin.spielauer@wifo.ac.at 2019/081/W/0 2019 Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Medieninhaber (Verleger), Hersteller: Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung 1030 Wien, Arsenal, Objekt 20 Tel. (43 1) 798 26 01-0 Fax (43 1) 798 93 86 http://www.wifo.ac.at/ Verlags- und Herstellungsort: Wien Die Working Papers geben nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des WIFO wieder Kostenloser Download: http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/61725

Policy Recommendations on the Gender Effects of Changes in Tax Bases, Rates, and Units Results of Microsimulation Analyses for Six Selected EU Member States Marian Fink, Austrian Institute of Economic Research, marian.fink@wifo.ac.at Jitka Janová, Mendel University, Brno, janova@mendelu.cz Danuše Nerudová, Department of Accounting and Taxes, Faculty of Business and economics, Mendel University, Zemedelska 1, 613 00 Brno, The Czech Republic E-mail: d.nerudova@seznam.cz, tel: 00420776757766 Jan Pavel, University of Economics, Prague, pavelj@vse.cz Margit Schratzenstaller, Austrian Institute of Economic Research, WIFO, A-1030 Vienna, Arsenal 20, Austria, E-mail: margit.schratzenstaller@wifo.ac.at Friedrich Sindermann, Budgetdienst des Österreichischen Parlaments, A-1010 Vienna, friedrich.sindermann@parlament.gv.at Martin Spielauer, Austrian Institute of Economic Research, martin.spielauer@wifo.ac.at The FairTax project is funded by the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 2014-2018, grant agreement No. FairTax 649439

2 Abstract 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Background 8 2.1 Selection of EU Member States for the microsimulation analyses 8 2.2 Personal income tax provisions and impact dimensions considered in the microsimulation analyses 13 2.2.1 Design of income tax schedule 13 2.2.2 System of household taxation 14 2.2.3 Design of child-related tax relief 15 2.2.4 Tax burden for second earners 16 2.3 Basic characteristics of the personal income tax systems of the selected EU Member States 18 2.3.1 Design of income tax schedule 19 2.3.2 Design of household taxation 19 2.3.3 Design of child-related tax relief 19 2.3.4 Tax burden for second earners 20 3. Microsimulation results 22 3.1 Philosophy and design elements of individual scenarios description 22 3.1.1 Scenarios for system of household taxation 23 3.1.2 Scenarios for child-related tax relief 23 3.1.3 Scenarios for design of income tax schedule 24 3.2 Results 26 3.2.1 Effects on public budgets 26 3.2.2 Effects on poverty and inequality 28 3.2.2.1 Simulation of changes in the income tax schedule 30 3.2.2.2 Simulation of changes in the system auf household taxation 31 3.2.2.3 Simulation of changes within (tax-related) child benefits 31 3.2.3 Gender aspects 32 3.2.3.1 Gender-differentiated distributional effects 32 3.2.3.1.1 Changes in the income tax schedule 33 3.2.3.1.2 Changes in the system of household taxation 35 3.2.3.1.3 Changes within (tax-related) child benefits 37 3.2.3.2 Impact on work incentives 38 3.2.3.2.1 Work incentives in the baseline scenario 42 3.2.3.2.2 Impact of changes in the design of the income tax schedule on work incentives 42 3.2.3.2.2.1 Impact on METRs 42 3.2.3.2.2.2 Impact on PTRs 43 3.2.3.2.3 Impact of changes in the system of household taxation on work incentives 43 3.2.3.2.3.1 Impact on METRs 43

3 3.2.3.2.3.2 Impact on PTRs 44 3.2.3.2.4 Impact of changes within (tax-related) child benefits on work incentives 45 3.2.3.2.4.1 Impact on METRs 45 3.2.3.2.4.2 Impact on PTRs 45 4. Conclusions and Outlook 46 5. References 49 6. Annex 51 7. Project information 82

4 Abstract The design of tax systems has a considerable impact on the personal distribution of income and wealth at the household and the individual level, and due to the gender-differentiated socio-economic conditions also in a gender perspective. One of the most important areas of taxation is the taxation of personal incomes through the personal income tax. It directly influences the after-tax distribution of incomes from the various income sources. Besides the level of income tax rates and the design of the income tax schedule (progressive versus flat tax schedule), the system of household taxation (joint versus individual taxation), the determination of taxable income and the design of tax exemptions (tax allowances versus credits), particularly child-related ones, are crucial determinants in this respect. In addition to the gender-differentiated distributional impact, income tax systems may also have a gender-differentiated effect on work incentives and the distribution of paid and unpaid work between men and women. It is important to note that these gender-differentiated effects imply an implicit tax bias of income tax systems which results from different socio-economic conditions and behavioural patterns of women and men, while modern income tax systems do not include any tax provisions linked to gender and thus do not contain any explicit tax bias. Against this background, the paper presents an overview of the microsimulation results for selected provisions of the personal income tax system done with EUROMOD for six selected Member States of the European Union (EU): Germany, Austria, Spain, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, and Sweden. These Member States were selected because they belong to different families of taxation with different traditions, institutional, historical and cultural factors and developments, and different religious and partisan influences shaping the evolution of (personal income) tax systems. Overall, our simulations show that the design of income tax schedules, systems of household taxation and (tax-related) child benefits has non-negligible effects on income distribution as well as work incentives in general and particularly from a gender perspective for the six EU Member States considered. Although the effects differ across countries, particularly on the level of household types, depending on the concrete design of the tax benefit system and the interactions between tax and benefit provisions, some general tendencies and effects can be identified.

5 Firstly, the introduction of a flat tax hardly impacts the simulated poverty risk but increases income inequality. Gender-differentiated effects are less clear-cut, and their extent differs across countries. However, generally a flat tax benefits couple households with a male active income contributor, while households with female active income contributors lose. Rather pronounced gender differences can also be found between active lone mothers and fathers. While in almost all countries active lone mothers lose from the introduction of a flat tax, active lone fathers are winners. Secondly, replacing individual taxation by a joint taxation system with income splitting has small effects on the poverty risk only, but decreases income inequality in all countries analysed. The introduction of joint taxation with income splitting benefits couple households with one active income contributor in almost all countries included, regardless of the existence of children and of the gender of the active income contributor. Gender-differentiated effects are almost nonexistent in childless couple households with one active income contributor. They are a little more pronounced if there are children in the household, due to income differences between spouses. Thirdly, our simulations show that the various child benefits have the expected overall distributional effects. Replacing an existing child benefit granted as cash transfer by tax-related child benefits raises the poverty risk and income inequality. Moreover, the inequality- and povertyincreasing effect of a child tax allowance is estimated to be higher compared to that of a child tax credit. Gender-differentiated effects are not clear-cut and require deeper analyses. Overall, one central result of our analyses is that the extent of gender differences in the effects of the various simulation scenarios differs markedly across the countries included. It remains to be explored, in a next step, to what extent these cross-country differences in the gender-differentiated impact of policy measures are associated with the prevailing welfare state / family of taxation types. Keywords: EUROMOD, microsimulations, gender effects, income taxation JEL classification code: D31, H21, H24, J16

6 1. Introduction 1 The design of tax systems has a considerable impact on the personal distribution of income and wealth at the household and the individual level, and due to gender-differentiated socioeconomic conditions also in a gender perspective. 2 One of the most important areas of taxation is the taxation of personal incomes through the personal income tax, which directly influences the after-tax distribution of incomes from the various income sources. Besides the level of income tax rates and the design of the income tax schedule (progressive versus flat tax schedule), the system of household taxation (joint versus individual taxation), the determination of taxable income and the design of tax exemptions (tax allowances versus credits), particularly child-related ones, are crucial determinants in this respect (Obinger and Wagschal 2010). In addition to the gender-differentiated distributional impact, income tax systems may also have a gender-differentiated effect on work incentives and the distribution of paid and unpaid work between men and women. It is important to note that these gender-differentiated effects imply an implicit tax bias of income tax systems which results from different socio-economic conditions and behavioural patterns of women and men, while modern income tax systems do not include any tax provisions linked to gender and thus do not contain any explicit tax bias (Thomas and O Reilly 2016). Against this background, the paper presents an overview of the microsimulation results for selected provisions of the personal income tax system done with EUROMOD 3 for six selected Member States of the European Union (EU): Germany, Austria, Spain, Czech Republic, United 1 We thank Andrea Sutrich for careful research assistance, and Paul Eckerstorfer, Asa Gunnarsson, Ulrike Spangenberg and Gerlinde Verbist for valuable suggestions and comments. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 2014-2020, grant agreement No. FairTax 649439. 2 Gunnarsson, Schratzenstaller and Spangenberg (2017) give an overview of the relevant taxation areas and the status quo in the EU from a gender perspective. 3 The results presented here are based on EUROMOD version H1.0+. EUROMOD is maintained, developed and managed by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex, in collaboration with national teams from the EU member states. We are indebted to the many people who have contributed to the development of EUROMOD. The process of extending and updating EUROMOD is financially supported by the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation Easi (2014-2020). The results and their interpretation are the authors responsibility. For the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain and Sweden we make use of microdata from the EU Statistics on Incomes and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) made available by Eurostat (169/2017-EUSILC); for Austria we use the national SILC data made available by Statistics Austria; for the UK we use Family Resources Survey (FRS) data made available by the Department of Work and Pensions via the UK Data Service. Data providers do not bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of the data reported here.

7 Kingdom, and Sweden. These Member States were selected because they belong to different families of taxation (Wagschal 2005, Obinger and Wagschal 2010) with different traditions, institutional, historical and cultural factors and developments, and different religious and partisan influences shaping the evolution of (personal income) tax systems (see chapter 2). In chapter 3 we summarise the results of our microsimulations of the impact of various personal income tax provisions.

8 2. Background 2.1 Selection of EU Member States for the microsimulation analyses The classification of the welfare state models prevailing in advanced democratic countries has a longstanding tradition in welfare state research. 4 This strand of the welfare state literature has its foundation in the seminal contribution by Esping-Andersen (1990), who, along the defining concepts of stratification and decommodification, found Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism : a Liberal, a Conservative, and a Social-democratic world. The four families of nations identified by Castles, Schmidt and Therborn (1993) according to historical traditions, language and neighbourhood include an English-speaking family, a Nordic family, a continental Western European and a Southern European family. Hall and Soskice (2001) distinguish between Liberal and Coordinated market economies as varieties of capitalism. Ebbinghaus (2012) points out that in this research the previously socialist Central and Eastern European new EU Member States mostly are ignored, with Castles and Obinger (2008) being one rare exception. Departing from these typologies, Wagschal (2005), based on a cluster analysis using 144 tax indicators for 21 selected OECD countries, develops a taxonomy for tax systems four families of taxation (see also Obinger and Wagschal 2010, Wagschal 2015). These families of taxation are primarily distinguished by the level of overall taxation 5 and the dominant taxing principle (benefit versus ability to pay principle): 6 - an English-speaking family (UK), with relatively low levels of taxation and a predominance of the ability to pay principle; - a Continental family (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands), which is strongly shaped by the benefit/insurance principle (based on the Bismarck tradition of social security financing) and relies heavily on social contributions; - a Nordic family (Denmark, Finland, Sweden), showing the highest levels of taxation and relatively low social contributions; - a peripheral or residual cluster, including a Southern (or Mediterranean) family (Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece) as well as Ireland, with medium levels of taxation and no clear predominance of one of the two fundamental taxing principles. 4 See Wagschal (2015) for an overview. 5 Measured as total revenues from taxation and social security contributions in relation to GDP. 6 The non-eu OECD countries included in the empirical study by Wagschal (2005) are neglected here.

9 Welfare state research finds that partisan complexion of governments is a crucial determinant of the evolution of these different families of taxation (Obinger and Wagschal 2010, Wagschal 2015): accordingly, conservative and liberal parties are dominant in the English-speaking family of taxation, while Christian democratic and social democratic parties strongly shape the Continental and the Southern family. The Nordic family is primarily influenced by social democratic parties. Of the selected six EU Member States analysed in our microsimulations, Austria and Germany are part of the Continental family of taxation, while the United Kingdom belongs to the Englishspeaking family, Sweden to the Nordic family, and Spain to the Southern/Mediterranean family. In the research on families of taxation, with its origins dating back to the mid-2000s, none of the 13 new EU Member States joining the EU beginning with the year 2004 has been considered so far. Closing this research gap is beyond the scope of our analysis. We therefore do not try to fit the Czech Republic into one of the four families of taxation outlined above, but rather establish an additional fifth family which may be labelled New family of taxation. Due to historical reasons and geographical proximity, (income) tax systems in those countries which can be attributed to this family of taxation share a number of common structural traits with the countries belonging to the Continental family of taxation. This new family in any case is characterised by overall tax ratios which in most new Member States are as low as those prevailing in the liberal English-speaking family, while the two fundamental taxing principles are of varying importance in the individual countries. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. shows the simulated structure of government revenues 7 for the six selected countries according to the baseline scenario (i.e. the existing tax and benefits system) for the year 2016. In line with the before-mentioned welfare state classification, the share of direct taxation is rather high in the UK and in Sweden, while the two Continental states Germany and Austria as well as Spain (and the Czech Republic) rely more on social security contributions. 7 See Burgos et al. (2017), De Agostini (2017), Fuchs and Hollan (2017), Gallego Granados (2016), Kalíšková, Münich and Pavel (2016) and Lindström (2017) for the scope of tax-benefit policies implemented in EUROMOD.

10 Figure 1 - Government revenue through taxes and social insurance contributions, baseline scenario, 2016 Source: EUROMOD. - Note: Government revenues in the baseline scenario as simulated by EUROMOD exclusive credited social insurance contributions. Sorted by relevance of direct taxes. Figure 2 shows the simulated composition of government expenditure on social transfers for the six countries in the baseline scenario for 2016. Pension expenditures clearly dominate in all countries regarded. Family and education benefits make for a negligible share in Spain, reflecting the crucial role that Spanish families have to play as welfare providers, while their share is highest in the UK. From a welfare state design perspective, also the structure of benefits by their design is of interest: While the UK relies heavily on means-tested benefits, the share of universal benefits is considerably higher in the other countries regarded. This is in line with the concept of a liberal welfare state regime serving persons in need when family and market solutions fail.

11 Figure 2 - Government expenditure on social transfers, baseline scenario, 2016 a ) by target group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ES CZ AT DE SE UK... unemployment benefits... family and education benefits... social assistance and housing benefits... pensions, health and disability benefits b) by benefit design 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SE CZ AT DE ES UK... means-tested non-pension benefits... non-means-tested non-pension benefits... pensions Source: EUROMOD. - Note: Government expenditure on social transfers in the baseline scenario as simulated by EUROMOD. A) Sorted by relevance of family and education benefits. B) Sorted by relevance of means-tested benefits. The missing gender perspective in the traditional line of research on welfare state (and taxation) models has been criticised by feminist scholars almost from the onset, starting with Jane

12 Lewis (1993). 8 Indeed Korpi (2000) as one of the first researchers in this field finds a certain correlation between the welfare state regime and the degree of gender equality in OECD countries. The explicit consideration of the gender dimension in the design of overall tax systems and tax provisions is relevant also from a comprehensive sustainability perspective: Gender equality is one aspect of the social dimension, which is one of the four pillars 9 of a comprehensive sustainability orientation of taxation. 10 Lewis dichotomy of familialisation versus defamiliasation, with the latter defined as policies relieving parents mostly mothers from their caring duties, with which she responds to the practically gender blind traditional welfare state research, has in turn been criticised by Saxonberg (2013) due to a lack of an explicit gender perspective and the focus on regimes rather than policies. As an alternative, Saxonberg (2013) develops a typology for the analysis of welfare state policies along the degree to which they promote different gender roles for men and women (genderising policies) or rather support their elimination (degenderising policies). His typology of genderisation is based on the example of the level of paid parental leave and state support for childcare, as important policies influencing gender roles. Accordingly, he distinguishes the following models: 11 - a degendered model (Sweden), with parental leaves equipped with high income replacement rates usually with father s quotas, and high state support for childcare; - a degendered moderately institutionalised model (Hungary, Germany after 2007), with parental leaves equipped with high income replacement rates usually with father quotas, and medium state support for childcare; - an explicitly gendered model (Austria12, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia), with maternity leaves and a medium level for additional flat-rate leaves, and relatively high state support for childcare; - a gendered moderately institutionalised model (Spain, Netherlands), with low, meanstested, or no benefits for paid leaves, and medium state support for childcare; - an implicitly gendered model (UK), with low, means-tested, or no benefits for paid leaves, and low state support for childcare. 8 See Saxonberg (2013) for a brief overview of the relevant literature. 9 Besides the economic, the environmental, and the institutional/cultural pillar. 10 For the concept of sustainability-oriented tax systems see Schratzenstaller, Krenek, Nerudová and Dobranschi (2017). 11 The non-eu countries included by Saxonberg (2013) are neglected here. 12 It has to be pointed out here that in the last few years Austria has been moving towards a more degenderised model.

13 In contrast to the family of taxation typology, this genderised welfare typology includes the Central and Eastern European countries that have joined the EU from 2004 on, and therefore also considers the Czech Republic. 2.2 Personal income tax provisions and impact dimensions considered in the microsimulation analyses Our microsimulation analyses focus on several personal income tax provisions which are crucial for two gender-relevant impact dimensions of taxation. The first impact dimension of taxation refers to the distribution of income in general and between men and women in particular. The second one regards work incentives and related the distribution of paid and unpaid work among men and women. Essential elements and characteristics of income taxation which have an impact on these gender-relevant impact dimensions of taxation include: - the progressivity of the personal income tax schedule, which can be progressive or flat (i.e. the income tax schedule consists of a uniform proportional marginal income tax rate, mostly combined with a basic tax allowance introducing a progressive element) - the system of household taxation, which can be individualised or joint (including couples or all household members in the tax unit) - the design of child-related tax relief, which can be granted in the form of (refundable) tax credits reducing the income tax liability, tax allowances reducing the tax base (i.e. taxable income) or direct cash transfers. 2.2.1 Design of income tax schedule While in the last quarter of the century 8 EU Member States, among them the Czech Republic in 2008, have introduced flat tax regimes beginning with the Baltic States in the early 1990s (with two of them having abolished them in the meantime 13 ), the progressivity of personal income taxation has been generally weakened throughout the EU in the long run (Gunnarsson, Schratzenstaller and Spangenberg 2017). In particular, almost all Member States not applying a flat income tax have dualised their income tax systems by introducing proportional and relatively low income tax rates for some or all kinds of capital income compared to those levied on labour and other incomes. Labour and other incomes are still subject to progressive income tax 13 The Slovak Republic introduced a second, higher tax rate for upper incomes in 2013 and Latvia replaced its flat tax by a progressive income tax schedule consisting of three tax bands in 2018.

14 schedules, whereby progressivity has been reduced by a general long-term trend of cutting top income tax rates. On average for the EU28, the top income tax rate went down from 47.2% to 39% between 1995 and 2015, remaining constant at that value since then (European Commission 2018A). Very generally, higher incomes benefit over-proportionately from such a dualisation of income taxation. Therefore, men on average benefit more than women: due to their generally higher income levels, and because capital incomes contribute a comparatively higher share to their incomes 14. 2.2.2 System of household taxation Another trend particularly relevant from a gender perspective is the individualisation of personal income tax systems. Meanwhile, joint income taxation, based on the married couple or all members of a household as tax unit, has turned into a minority model in the EU: A recent survey by Meulders (2016) shows that only five of the 28 EU Member States (Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Ireland and France) have a joint taxation model as general standard, while in four Member States (Spain, Estonia, Malta and Poland) the spouses choose between joint and individual taxation. 15 This development has made personal income tax systems more employment-friendly for women: there is ample empirical evidence that joint income taxation impairs work incentives for women 16. The trend towards the individualisation of income tax systems has also reduced incentives to share paid and unpaid work unequally between men and women, with men taking on a considerably larger share of paid work, while women take care of the bulk of unpaid work. It must be pointed out, however, that most individualised income tax systems with Sweden and Finland as the only exceptions in the EU28 - provide some kind of tax relief for couples in which one partner has no or only negligible earnings, thus re-introducing at least indirect incentives for a traditional division of labour within the household. In the same vein, individual taxation and its gender equality promoting effects are undermined by family support distributed via the tax system and based on household income (Thomas and O Reilly 2016). 14 See Bach (2013) for differences in income levels and structures between men and women for the example of Germany. 15 See also Thomas and O Reilly (2016) for a brief overview of the situation in the OECD as of 2015. 16 See Gunnarsson, Schratzenstaller and Spangenberg (2017) for a brief overview of relevant empirical analyses based on different methodological approaches.

15 2.2.3 Design of child-related tax relief The design of child-related tax relief is relevant from a distributional point of view in general and from a gender perspective in particular. A tax allowance, which reduces the tax liability by decreasing the tax base (i.e. taxable income), provides increasing tax relief in absolute as well as relative terms (relative to taxable income) in case of a progressive income tax schedule. A (wastable) tax credit, i.e. an absolute amount which can be deducted from the tax liability, avoids this degressive effect, as it provides uniform tax relief independent from taxable income in absolute terms and decreasing tax relief relative to taxable income. Compared to direct cash transfers, the downside of both instruments is that they do not provide tax relief to households in the low-income range with no or only low taxable income or tax liability from which to deduct child-related allowances or credits. Non-wastable (payable) tax credits (as applied e.g. in the Czech Republic and Austria) avoid this problem. As women earn less on average compared to men, a child tax credit generally is more favourable from a gender perspective than a child tax allowance with regard to distributional aspects. Figure 3 gives a rough overview of the general structures of family benefits for the year 2013 for the 16 EU countries who are members of the OECD. On average, tax breaks account for only about 10% of overall family benefits, while services (primarily child care facilities) make up for more than one third and cash benefits for more than half of overall family benefits. Thus, very generally, child- and family-related tax relief is of minor importance within overall family benefits in the EU OECD countries. Despite a general trend towards the expansion of child care facilities, the structure of family benefits still varies considerably between countries. Sweden does not grant any tax breaks for families, and they are of a negligible magnitude in Austria17. Also, in Spain and the UK tax breaks do not play a major role, while they contribute considerably to overall family benefits in Germany and the Czech Republic. 17 This situation has changed somewhat in 2019, with the introduction of the so-called family bonus (a child tax credit) (Fink and Rocha-Akis 2018).

16 Figure 3 - Family benefits in percent of GDP in EU OECD countries, 2013 Source: Authors calculations based on OECD. EU 15: without Greece; EU OECD: average of EU OECD-countries. 2.2.4 Tax burden for second earners Finally, the tax burden for second earners plays a crucial role from a gender perspective. There is ample empirical evidence that female labour supply is more responsive to changes in income and thus taxation, particularly for married women with children who in many EU countries are often second earners (Thomas and O Reilly 2016) 18. One key indicator in this respect is the so-called inactivity trap, which reflects the burden on labour income for second earners resulting from the withdrawal of benefits on the one hand and from taxation (personal income tax and social security contributions) on the other hand upon entering the labour market out of inactivity (e.g. after parental leave). This indicator has attracted growing attention in recent years, as it reflects the extent of negative work incentives with regard to labour market participation for second earners (e.g. European Commission 2018B). Figure 4 shows the inactivity trap for second earners taking up employment out of inactivity at 67% of the average wage for 2016 under the assumption that the principal earner receives an average gross wage. The inactivity trap is the result of taxes kicking in (including the loss of tax relief from joint taxation provisions aiming at reducing the tax burden for sole 18 See Meghir and Phillips (2010), Bargain and Peichl (2013), Bargain, Orsini and Peichl (2014) and Bick and Fuchs- Schündeln (2017) for extensive reviews over existing empirical analyses and own estimations of gender-differentiated labour supply elasticities for a number of advanced countries.

17 earners) when employment is taken up out of inactivity on the one hand and of benefits withdrawn (particularly means-tested social assistance) on the other hand. It can be interpreted as implicit tax rate on the return to the labour market of inactive persons and reflects the share of the earned gross wage which is taxed away at the take-up of employment, thus measuring the financial (dis)incentives to take up employment. The size of the inactivity trap can be increased by joint taxation provisions and other tax provisions alleviating the tax burden for couples where the earnings are distributed unequally among the spouses, as well as by meanstested benefits for the non- or lower earning partner (European Commission 2018B). On average, the inactivity trap reaches 29.9 percent for the EU (Figure 4). Figure 4 illustrates that in almost all EU Member States, taxes contribute the lion s share to the inactivity trap. A second indicator for work (dis)incentives for second earners is the low wage trap, reflecting the tax burden for a second earner upon increasing the gross wage from 33% to 66% of an average wage. On average, the low wage trap amounts to 33.7 percent for the EU (Figure 5). Figure 5 shows that taxes are responsible also for the largest portion of the low wage trap in most EU Member States. Figure 4 - Inactivity trap for second earners in EU Member States, 2016 Source: Eurostat and European Commission tax and benefits indicator database based on OECD data. 1) For second earner at 67% of the average wage in a two-earner family with two children; the principal earner earns the average wage. 2) 'Contribution of taxation' refers to the contribution made by taxation to the inactivity trap. 3) Employment rate for women is used as proxy for second earners.

18 Figure 5 Low wage trap for second earners in EU Member States, 2016 Source: Eurostat and European Commission tax and benefits indicator database based on OECD data. 1) For second earner with a wage increase from 33 % to 66 % of the average wage in a two-earner family with two children; the principal earner earns the average wage. 2) 'Contribution of taxation' refers to the contribution made by taxation (taxes plus social security contributions) to the low wage trap. 2.3 Basic characteristics of the personal income tax systems of the selected EU Member States Six EU Member States were selected for the EUROMOD microsimulation analyses, stemming from the five families of taxation sketched above: Germany and Austria from the Continental family, the United Kingdom from the English-speaking family, Spain from the Southern family, Sweden from the Nordic family, and the Czech Republic from the new family. Figure 6 contains the basic characteristics of the personal income tax systems of these six EU countries as of 2016. Sweden is the only country in this group whose welfare state based on the typology elaborated by Saxonberg (2013) can be characterised as degendered, while the UK is implicitly and Austria as well as the Czech Republic are explicitly gendered. At a moderately institutionalised level, Germany has a degendered, Spain a gendered welfare state.

19 2.3.1 Design of income tax schedule With the exception of the Czech Republic, all Member States regarded apply a progressive income tax schedule, with the basic income tax rate ranging from 14% in Germany to 52.12% in Sweden and the top income tax rate ranging from 45% in Spain to 57.1% in Sweden (2016). The Czech Republic introduced a flat income tax in 2008, thus joining the minority of EU Member States taxing all incomes at proportional income tax rates 19 ; the Czech flat income tax rate is 15% 20. 2.3.2 Design of household taxation Among the six EU Member States regarded here, individual taxation predominates with regard to the tax unit, which corresponds to the overall international long-term trend of individualisation of personal income taxation. 21 The exception is Germany, where a system of joint taxation with full income splitting is applied as standard model. Married couples can opt for individual taxation, which, however, is unattractive financially for spouses with unequal incomes as joint taxation with income splitting reduces the couple s overall tax burden. In Spain, married couples can opt for joint taxation, which implies an increased basic allowance but does not involve income splitting. The Czech Republic and Austria apply individual taxation, granting some form of tax relief to sole earners; also the UK offers some (means-tested) tax relief for sole earner couples. In the group of countries considered in the analyses, only Sweden has a strictly individualised personal income tax system offering no tax relief for sole earners. 2.3.3 Design of child-related tax relief Sweden is the only country in our country group that does not grant any form of tax relief for children; Swedish families with children receive child cash benefits instead. Four countries Austria, the UK, the Czech Republic and Spain - offer tax credits for children. Hereby the Austrian tax credit de facto is designed as a universal child benefit paid in addition to another child cash benefit, the Czech tax credit is non-wastable, in UK the child tax credit is meanstested. Germany applies a combination of a universal child benefit paid as cash transfer to low 19 In 2016, seven EU Member States applied a flat tax; in 2018, Latvia replaced its flat income tax schedule by a progressive one. For the EU Member States having adopted and abolished flat taxes and the respective income tax rates since 2003 see European Commission (2018A). 20 For very high incomes, there is a surcharge of 7%; which, however, is neglected here as it affects a very small group of taxpayers only. 21 Gunnarsson, Schratzenstaller and Spangenberg (2017) give a brief overview for the EU.

20 and medium incomes and a tax allowance for higher incomes. In addition to the child tax credit (which de facto is a cash transfer), Austrian families receive child cash benefits and can make use of a (low) child tax allowance. 2.3.4 Tax burden for second earners In the six countries regarded the inactivity trap for second earners (Figure 4) is lowest in the UK (20%) and highest in Germany (46.1%). In all countries it is exclusively caused by taxation. Remarkably, the contribution of taxation to the Swedish inactivity trap amounts to 134.1%. As a result of the income splitting system the low wage trap for second earners (Figure 5 ) again is highest in Germany. At 21.3%, Spain has the lowest low wage trap. Also the low wage trap is dating back to taxation only in all six countries; with Sweden again showing an exceptionally high value of 123.6%.

21 Figure 6 Basic characteristics of the personal income tax systems of selected EU Member States (2016)

22 3. Microsimulation results This chapter provides an overview of the most important results of microsimulations of various scenarios modifying income tax provisions which are relevant, firstly, with regard to the distributional impact of income taxation in general and from a gender perspective in particular, and, secondly, for work incentives for women. The countries included are Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, representing different welfare state types and families of taxation as outlined in section 2.1. These results were obtained using the tax-benefit microsimulation model EUROMOD (Sutherland and Figari 2013). The policy year for all analyses is 2016. The simulations are based on the results of the EU-SILC sample survey and the Family Resources Survey. The data contains information on the characteristics, amount and structure of income (income is uprated to the policy year 2016) and some information on expenditures of individuals living in various types of private households (see Figure 7 for the data source, number of individuals and private households per country). When implementing individual scenarios, modifications are made to some tax parameters, while the parameters of other components of the tax and benefits system remain constant unless otherwise indicated. Figure 7 gives an overview of the EUROMOD datasets for the selected countries. Figure 7 Overview of the EUROMOD datasets for the selected countries Country Austria Czech Republic Germany Spain Sweden United Kingdom Policy Year 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Database EU-SILC 2015 EU-SILC 2015 EU-SILC 2013 EU-SILC 2015 EU-SILC 2013 Family Resources Survey 2014/2015 Number of households Number of individuals 6 045 7 914 13 145 12 367 6 628 19 535 13 173 17 683 27 840 32 201 16 452 44 787 Source: Authors calculations and representation. 3.1 Philosophy and design elements of individual scenarios description Several scenarios were simulated for each of the six EU Member States. The first scenario, referred to as the Baseline (BL), is identical for each country and represents the respective tax and benefits system of the policy year 2016 without modifications. The other scenarios aim to

23 assess different impacts of several personal income tax elements which are assumed to be especially important from a distributional as well as from a gender perspective, focusing on the system of household taxation (individual versus joint taxation), the design of the tax schedule (progressive versus flat), and the design of child benefits (tax credits versus tax allowances versus cash transfers, respectively). All simulations are carried out maintaining budget neutrality to keep constant the budgetary means dedicated to a specific policy measure and thus to eliminate potential effects by simply changing the budgetary means available for a specific policy measure: Accordingly, the overall budgetary impact of the simulated scenarios is zero or negligible. However, some scenarios may imply a simultaneous decrease or increase of public revenues and expenditures, thus altering the structure of public budgets. Figure 8 provides an overview of the scenarios simulated for the six selected EU countries. 3.1.1 Scenarios for system of household taxation Individual taxation (and tax relief for sole and principal earner couples, where applicable) is replaced by joint taxation (scenarios denoted as JT), more precisely a system of income splitting according to the German model, for Austria, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. In case of the Czech Republic the income tax schedule was simultaneously switched from flat to progressive tax (section 3.1.3). An additional scenario denoted as RMETR is simulated for the Czech Republic in which the tax credit for a husband or wife with low earnings is abolished and the child tax credit is increased to maintain budget neutrality. For Germany, we simulate the replacement of the existing income splitting system by an individual income tax system (IT). To maintain budget neutrality, all income tax rates are adjusted proportionally: downwards for Germany, upwards for all other countries, as generally an income splitting system induces income tax revenue losses. Two remarks must be made here: Firstly, the design of the scenarios neglects any legal or other restrictions which may impede their implementation (e.g. full individualisation of income taxation is not legally warranted in Germany). Secondly, with the exception of Sweden, the baseline scenario for the individual taxation countries is not full individualisation, as they all grant some tax relief for sole and principal earner couples. 3.1.2 Scenarios for child-related tax relief The simulations of the impacts of the various child-related benefits are more complex. These instruments are used in differing designs and to a differing extent in the countries analysed,

24 some countries combine several (tax-related) child benefits. The design of our scenarios aims at identifying the differing impact of child tax credits (ChC), child tax allowances (ChA), and child-related cash transfers. Therefore, we simulate two alternative scenarios each for Sweden, Germany, the UK, and Austria; one scenario is considered for the Czech Republic and Spain. For those countries relying solely (Sweden) or primarily (Germany) on a child cash benefit, we develop two alternative scenarios each: the replacement of the existing child cash benefit by a child tax credit in a first and by a child tax allowance in a second scenario. For the UK, a first scenario substitutes the existing means-tested child tax credit by a non-refundable child tax credit, while a second one foresees replacing the means-tested child tax credit by a child tax allowance. For Austria the existing child tax credit (de facto child cash benefit) is replaced by a child tax allowance in a first scenario, a second scenario substitutes the existing child tax allowance by a new child tax credit. Rather straightforward are the Czech Republic and Spain: for both countries, the current child tax credit is replaced by a child tax allowance. 3.1.3 Scenarios for design of income tax schedule The existing progressive income tax schedule is replaced by a flat income tax schedule for Austria, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany (denoted as FT). For the Czech Republic, we simulate the replacement of the existing flat income tax schedule by a progressive one 22 in a first scenario (PT), while in a second scenario a progressive income tax schedule is combined with joint taxation with income splitting for couples (JT). For the five countries with a progressive tax schedule, we simulate a scenario in which all existing tax exemptions are maintained. To maintain budget neutrality, the flat income tax rate is adjusted accordingly. 22 That means we simulate the re-introduction of the progressive tax schedule which was abolished in 2008 with the original tax rates, adjusting the tax brackets to maintain budget neutrality.

25 Figure 8 Scenarios for EUROMOD microsimulations for six selected EU Member States Country System of household taxation Child-related tax relief Design of income tax schedule Germany Replacing joint taxation of spouses (income splitting) by individual taxation, maintaining budget neutrality by a proportional decrease of all income tax rates (IT) Scenario a: Replacing the child benefit by a child tax credit, which is scaled up to maintain budget neutrality (ChC) Scenario b: Replacing the child benefit by a child tax allowance, which is scaled up to maintain budget neutrality (ChA) Replacing the progressive tax schedule by a flat tax, keeping the basic tax allowance and all tax credits, maintaining budget neutrality by adjusting the tax rate (FT) Austria Replacing individual taxation of spouses by joint taxation (income splitting), maintaining budget neutrality by a proportional increase of all income tax rates (JT) Scenario a: Replacing the child tax credit (de facto cash benefit) by a child tax allowance, which is scaled up to maintain budget neutrality (ChA) Scenario b: Budget neutral replacement of the child allowance by a new child tax credit (ChC) Replacing the progressive tax schedule by a flat tax, keeping the basic tax allowance and all tax credits, maintaining budget neutrality by adjusting the tax rate (FT) Spain Replacing individual taxation of spouses by joint taxation (income splitting), maintaining budget neutrality by a proportional increase of all income tax rates (JT) Budget neutral replacement of the family tax credit for children by a tax allowance (ChA) Replacing the progressive tax schedule by a flat tax, keeping the basic tax allowance and all tax credits, maintaining budget neutrality by adjusting the tax rate (FT) Sweden Replacing individual taxation of spouses by joint taxation (income splitting), maintaining budget neutrality by a proportional increase of all income tax rates (JT) Scenario a: Replacing the child benefit by a child tax credit, which is scaled up to maintain budget neutrality (ChC) Scenario b: Replacing the child benefit by a child tax allowance, which is scaled up to maintain budget neutrality (ChA) Replacing the progressive tax schedule by a flat tax, keeping the basic tax deduction and all tax credits, maintaining budget neutrality by adjusting the tax rate (FT) United Kingdom Replacing individual taxation of spouses by joint taxation (income splitting), maintaining budget neutrality by a proportional increase of all income tax rates (JT) Scenario a: Replacing the child tax credit (means-tested benefit) by a child allowance, which is scaled up to maintain budget neutrality (ChA) Scenario b: Replacing the child tax credit (means-tested benefit) by a non-refundable tax credit, which is scaled down to maintain budget neutrality (ChC) Replacing the progressive tax schedule by a flat tax, keeping the basic tax allowance and all tax credits, maintaining budget neutrality by adjusting the tax rate (FT) Czech Republic Abolishing the tax credit for a husband or wife with low earnings, maintaining budget neutrality by increasing the child tax credit (RMETR) Transforming the child tax credit into a child allowance, which is scaled up proportionally to maintain budget neutrality (ChA) Source: Authors representation. Note: Abbreviations denoting the scenarios in parenthesis. Scenario a: Replacing the flat tax by a progressive tax schedule, maintaining budget neutrality (PT) Scenario b: Replacing the flat tax by a progressive tax schedule with the option for joint taxation of spouses (income splitting), maintaining budget neutrality (JT)